Grapple controls are free-aim on M/KB; on a gamepad, they lock onto the nearest grapple point, which isn't always going to be the best point. Also, the Wizard's abilities rely on being able to draw.
I could understand preferring the feel of a gamepad, but you're losing functionality going that route. I really can't see the argument against M/KB at all.
Screwed up the flow of my game last night. I accidentally hit one of the function buttons while I was playing, and it set all my weapons to level 1. Tapping it again set everything to level 2. Now it will only alternate between those two levels. There's another button that will raise your XP by about five or 10 green vials at a click, so I thought I'd just try to reset everything manually, but then I noticed I now also have every piece of treasure in my inventory, and also couldn't reset the weapons I hadn't actually found yet.
Not the hugest deal, but I'm not sure why these developer controls were just on by default, especially since I can't undo it... :- \
Not understanding graphic war here, its a PSN title and its most likely full 1080p 60 FPS with 2 or 4x AA on PS3. I'm go with the cheaper version here.
I highly doubt it is going to run in 1080p with antialiasing at 60fps on the PS3 or the Xbox 360.
How many games actually run in 1920x1080 resolution on the PS3 or the Xbox 360? How many of those run at 60fps? I bet you could count the number on two hands and still have fingers left over. Now how many of those 1080p 60fps games look even nearly as good as Trine?
I think we'll be lucky if the game maintains a 30fps+ framerate in 720p on the consoles.
I didn't say it was going to run like crap; I just said it's probably not going to run like you think it will. It is a pretty hardware intensive game, especially if you have everything cranked. Heck, the only way I can get a mostly 60 fps framerate at 1920x1080 is by not having AA on at all. I'm not knocking the PS3 at all; I'm just saying that I have tempered expectations and will be completely unsurprised if it's a solid 30 fps, which is more than fine for the game.
I went ahead and bought the game either way, in spite of the ridiculous price setting it has on steam.
I'm still annoyed at the prize but at the same time I just gotta say that my initial impressions, after maybe 30 minutes of playing, is that the game just might be fucking awesome.
I really do sympathize for our Euro brethren; no matter how you slice, Valve's decision to have pricing parity with what they cost in NA is really shitty, especially in light of the incredible discounts you guys almost always get on retail PC games.
I really do sympathize for our Euro brethren; no matter how you slice, Valve's decision to have pricing parity with what they cost in NA is really shitty, especially in light of the incredible discounts you guys almost always get on retail PC games.
No kiddin'. Every new full game that's released on steam costs about 10-15 US dollars more than if I'd actually buy it in a store. It's completely backwards.
Not understanding graphic war here, its a PSN title and its most likely full 1080p 60 FPS with 2 or 4x AA on PS3. I'm go with the cheaper version here.
The game is demanding, i'm getting slowdows on my 8800gt, 1680x1050 and 4xaa. If the ps3 version runs at that resolution and framerate then it's gonna have to scale back the textures/lighting etc.
I was looking for a quick save or save button because I wasn't sure if the game saved automatically during the checkpoints. So I tried pressing F5, F6, F4 and etc, because the save button is usually located somewhere there, I think.
Either way, apparantely Frozenbyte's forgotten to remove some functions and when I pressed those buttons I reset all my levels. But it works the other way too--you can increase the level as well. So yeah, now I've got every damn item in the game and I've lost my levels unless I just opt for maxing them out by using one of those buttons, which I don't want to.
According to a post on the steam forums this issue will be taken care of during monday.
For future reference, the game never saves your progress in a level. What it does save, though, is any and all pickups you come across. You could even start a level, nab a single experience potion, quit the level and come back to it with that single point of experience intact. This is why getting all the experience in the last level is a lot easier than it probably should have been because you go after a real out-of-the-way potion, fall in the lava and just restart the whole thing :lol
I guess the logic behind it is that since traversing a level usually takes a short amount of time, there's really not much of a reason to save your progress in it, outside of your pickups.
Not understanding graphic war here, its a PSN title and its most likely full 1080p 60 FPS with 2 or 4x AA on PS3. I'm go with the cheaper version here.
It'll be 720p/30hz. I guarantee it. Probably with some slowdown in parts and no AA to boot, oh and lower resolution textures and maybe a few missing effects as well. It'll look great and all, but of course the PS3 version will look much worse than it does when run on hardware 5x as capable, its just the way the world works.
If someone with say a 256MB 7900GT/GS and a 2ghz Core 2 posts their results then expect something in line with that. Console specific optimisation should be able to cover the shortfall in fillrate and bandwidth between RSX and those parts but don't expect it to go far above and beyond that.
For reference Street Fighter IV arcade was based on a 2.13ghz Core 2 and 7900GS and it ran worse on the PS3 (had to cut the resolution during closeups). Anyone with experience of decently optimised PC multiplats will be able to tell you the same.
Apocalyptatron said:
Does anyone know if this game works well with a controller on the PC? I'm having a hard time platforming by hitting the space bar all the time.
I could get used to it I guess, this game is awesome otherwise.
Why not just map jump to another button (like something on your mouse for instance)?
360 controller support is flawless but it will support other pads just fine. Still, you're a little restricted in terms of flexibility of your abilities when you use a controller so its a tradeoff. It may be your keyboard that's the issue, mine has flat keys with a very short action which makes it ideal for games, worth looking into anyway.
Why not just map jump to another button (like something on your mouse for instance)?
360 controller support is flawless but it will support other pads just fine. Still, you're a little restricted in terms of flexibility of your abilities when you use a controller so its a tradeoff. It may be your keyboard that's the issue, mine has flat keys with a very short action which makes it ideal for games, worth looking into anyway.
Mapping it to my mouse isn't a bad idea, thanks! I heard about people hooking up their 360 controllers to work with PC, I have to do some googling but I wonder if I can do that with my PS3 controller, that would be awesome.
Mapping it to my mouse isn't a bad idea, thanks! I heard about people hooking up their 360 controllers to work with PC, I have to do some googling but I wonder if I can do that with my PS3 controller, that would be awesome.
The PS3 pad will work (though posssibly not with Vista x64 due to driver issues) but you're really recommended to get hold of a 360 pad. Its basically the de facto standard PC pad these days, nigh on every major new release (including Trine) where a gamepad makes sense will work "plug and play" with it fully configured and the correct icons on screen and everything, just as it would on a console.
It looks brilliant regardless. Hell, it looks brilliant in 720p. I really think the whole resolution thing is the saddest bulletpoint of this gen. I'm curious about when new 1080p games come out and I like to check them out on my 1080p plasma, but I never, ever let it factor in my buying decisions.
So I downloaded the demo, and it runs great but makes my graphics card run REALLY hot. (I have a 9800 GT 512mb) Is this because my card isn't a physx card?
It'll be 720p/30hz. I guarantee it. Probably with some slowdown in parts and no AA to boot, oh and lower resolution textures and maybe a few missing effects as well. It'll look great and all, but of course the PS3 version will look much worse than it does when run on hardware 5x as capable, its just the way the world works.
If someone with say a 256MB 7900GT/GS and a 2ghz Core 2 posts their results then expect something in line with that. Console specific optimisation should be able to cover the shortfall in fillrate and bandwidth between RSX and those parts but don't expect it to go far above and beyond that.
For reference Street Fighter IV arcade was based on a 2.13ghz Core 2 and 7900GS and it ran worse on the PS3 (had to cut the resolution during closeups). Anyone with experience of decently optimised PC multiplats will be able to tell you the same.
Of Course, the post you quoted says nothing about superior now did it? Either way guess we will wait till the pixel counters get a hold of it to find out. I didn't see Trine the pinnacle of graphics on PSN that it couldn't be full HD on PS3 with AA but I who knows. While other games are able to achieve it, now 60 FPS is probably pushing.
The space bar works perfectly for me. I vastly prefer the keyboard + mouse to a controller for this game. The default controls also have jump mapped to "W", but if that doesn't work for you just map it to another button like another poster said.
Picked this up on my PC earlier, and booted it up. Noticed it was running somewhat slow, so I went and changed to medium settings. Same thing. Now, I don't have the newest PC, but it isn't ancient either. Should I be having this problem with these specs?
The game is more demanding that I would have guessed. It runs pretty poorly with AA enabled at 1080p. Consider the type of visuals presented, that's pretty surprising to me. With AA disabled, I get a solid 60, but it doesn't really seem to justify this. Basically, it doesn't seem all that well optimized. I have a feeling the PSN version is going to be 1280x720 at 30 fps, for those waiting...
I bought it on sunday too - was a little scared to play it at first, with the alt-tab crash and developer controls that'd been left in the game, but I played past the demo levels - game is just as fun as I imagined it would be.
Looks like there was a patch in this morning (euro time) that fixed the missing achievements, alt-tab crash and the dev controls, so that's good stuff - I was lucky not to accidentally press any function keys, but .. kinda sucks if people lost their progress or skill points because of that.
I understand FB is a small studio so I'm willing to cut them some slack. And pay the high price
Picked this up on my PC earlier, and booted it up. Noticed it was running somewhat slow, so I went and changed to medium settings. Same thing. Now, I don't have the newest PC, but it isn't ancient either. Should I be having this problem with these specs?
Well the 9500GT was always a terrible videocard (its basically a rebranded 8600GT which barely topped the ancient 7600GT in a lot of cases), offering horrible bang for buck. You'd see a lot of mileage from a $100 4850 (its about 3-4x as fast).
Regardless, you should be getting decent enough performance atm. Make sure you don't have AA enabled and don't choose a particularly high resolution, as your card will have its performance utterly crippled with these settings due to its pathetic bandwidth and fillrate. The game seems to eat through fillrate and bandwidth for breakfast which means your card (and RSX for that matter) are really going to struggle since these are the two weakest areas of a 9500GT and RSX.
dark10x said:
The game is more demanding that I would have guessed. It runs pretty poorly with AA enabled at 1080p. Consider the type of visuals presented, that's pretty surprising to me. With AA disabled, I get a solid 60, but it doesn't really seem to justify this. Basically, it doesn't seem all that well optimized. I have a feeling the PSN version is going to be 1280x720 at 30 fps, for those waiting...
There's something funky going on with their AA implementation. It utterly rapes your performance and, I swear it doesn't look like its using a standard MSAA pattern either. You'll probably be able to get away with 2xAA but stay away from 4xAA.
I'd expect the PS3 version to be 720p/30fps with zero AA.
Well the 9500GT was always a terrible videocard (its basically a rebranded 8600GT which barely topped the ancient 7600GT in a lot of cases), offering horrible bang for buck. You'd see a lot of mileage from a $100 4850 (its about 3-4x as fast).
You're the first person to ever say this card gave horrible bang for the buck. When I posted 8 or 9 months back on both her and CAG, this card was the unanimous winner with regard to what would give me the best value for my dollar, so I'm quite confused by this statement I must admit.
This game certainly won't be the one to force my hand with regard to upgrading, though I plan to at Summers end.
I was fully expecting to get the PS3 version of the game... until I downloaded the demo on PC. It looks amazing and plays amazing with M/KB and I can't see how it could even compare given the control mechanics. Purchased from Steam after finishing because there is no way this game isn't going to be worth $30.
You're the first person to ever say this card gave horrible bang for the buck. When I posted 8 or 9 months back on both her and CAG, this card was the unanimous winner with regard to what would give me the best value for my dollar, so I'm quite confused by this statement I must admit.
This game certainly won't be the one to force my hand with regard to upgrading, though I plan to at Summers end.
Well its always been the case, you just got some really bad advice. The 4670 for instance hits roughly the same price bracket yet it will give you roughly twice the framerate in most games.
Its a rebadged 8600gt for all intents and purposes, and that thing was (quite rightfully) received as one of Nvdia's most underwhelming launhces in history.
Put off finishing the last few levels so I could see how the game looked/performed with my new graphics card. It didn't disappoint!
After the build-up of the terrible last level, I was expecting much worse. I died twice on normal difficulty, so I dialed it down to Easy. Was able to get through in one straight shot. I'm glad it was a short segment. Glad to be able to leave the game feeling very satisfied rather than frustrated.
Marketing hype really. It's either HD or not. Or you can refer to 720p or 1080p. There's no half or "Full HD". I say we ban the term "Full HD" considering the average person thinks that anything widescreen is HD. Plus it's just stupid anyway. Oh yeah, I'm looking forward to this game when it arrives on the consoles.
Gotta agree with Brad Shoemaker "Who thought that this last level would be a good idea?" :lol
Although I got lucky in the zone on my third or fourth try and rushed to the top. Realising that the Knight can simply destroy the red planks/boxes also helped.
Great game, overall.
DieH@rd said:
Im not gonna watch it then, i think i'm near the end of the game.
Here's a summation of the Game Trailers review, for those worried about spoilers.
Trine is short and doesn't do anything that you haven't done in games before. It doesn't push the envelope when it comes to graphics but has great style. The co-op, while nothing new, is pretty fun. The game is polished and put together well.
Guys, Anti-Aliasing is a process which was very important when everyone was running 1024x768. Nowadays, the average person is running 1680x1050. What this means, is that the process of Anti-Aliasing (blurring the edges of pixel lines so it looks smooth, not pixelated) is much, much more resource intensive. Furthermore, nowadays, graphics cards are not optimised for it as well as they used to be because, and I'm only going to say this once, Anti-Aliasing is NOT necessary anymore, if you're running at HD resolutions like 1680x1050, because the pixels are so small, you can't see them. And even if you can, the pixels are so small in relation to the character models, that they approximate a smooth curve almost perfectly, which is the reason AA was so important back in the day.
So turn off AA, and don't worry about it. It's not important. Use the extra graphical processing power on larger textures, which you WILL notice, and Shadows, both of which are vastly more important to over-all graphical looks.
Guys, Anti-Aliasing is a process which was very important when everyone was running 1024x768. Nowadays, the average person is running 1680x1050. What this means, is that the process of Anti-Aliasing (blurring the edges of pixel lines so it looks smooth, not pixelated) is much, much more resource intensive. Furthermore, nowadays, graphics cards are not optimised for it as well as they used to be because, and I'm only going to say this once, Anti-Aliasing is NOT necessary anymore, if you're running at HD resolutions like 1680x1050, because the pixels are so small, you can't see them. And even if you can, the pixels are so small in relation to the character models, that they approximate a smooth curve almost perfectly, which is the reason AA was so important back in the day.
So turn off AA, and don't worry about it. It's not important. Use the extra graphical processing power on larger textures, which you WILL notice, and Shadows, both of which are vastly more important to over-all graphical looks.
Reputation for what exactly? Having posters with functioning eyes?
Ofcourse aliasing is less noticeable as you increase resolution but that sure as shit isn't a substitute for genuine anti aliasing. I can absolutely tell the difference between zero, 2x and 4x msaa at 1080p on my 23" monitor in most games. People should set their graphics quality settings according to what they value the most, not what you perceive to be necessary.
